Argument from graph
run not observed provisional awaiting approvalRestated from the claim graph alone, what does this paper argue — and where does that part from its abstract?
for Self-association enhances early attentional selection through automatic prioritization of socially salient signals · this layer across all papers · json
Provisional
This layer needs a corpus-scope decision that has not been ruled on yet, so what it produces would change if the decision changed. It waits on claim-format, relation-vocab.
Awaiting approval
Waiting for approval. That is a statement about the record, not about whether anyone has read this: people read the corpus without stamping what they read, and only a stamp leaves a trace. Approval is an operation on a version, not a step of its own — it is recorded against the version it was granted to, so running this layer again does not carry it forward.
What this layer produced
Argument from the graph3
An LLM was given only this paper's enriched claim graph — claims, panel references, roles, and the relations between them — with no access to the abstract, paper prose, or any external context. It was asked to reconstruct the argument. Below: the reconstructed argument, then a comparison to the published abstract above. The two prompts that produced these texts are at the bottom, available for inspection.
Reconstructed argument
Scheller et al. ask whether arbitrary self-association alters early attentional selection and, if so, through what mechanism. Working within Bundesen's Theory of Visual Attention, which decomposes attention into absolute processing capacity (C) and relative attentional weights (w), they advance three linked hypotheses. The first holds that mere association of a neutral shape with the self acts as an automatic salience signal at the perceptual feature level, boosting the processing rate of the self-associated stimulus even when social identity is task-irrelevant -- and that requiring an explicit social-identity decision should attenuate or reverse this advantage by redirecting resources toward a competing social-decoding stage. The second hypothesis specifies the mechanism: self-association mobilizes additional encoding capacity (a change in C) rather than merely redistributing fixed attentional weights. The third proposes that social salience and physical perceptual salience capture attention via independent mechanisms whose effects should combine additively. Two preregistered experiments using temporal order judgement tasks test these predictions. A hierarchical Bayesian TVA model comparison establishes the methodological foundation: a model with condition-specific capacity parameters substantially outperforms a weights-only model, confirming that self-association changes absolute processing rates. With this validated decomposition in hand, Experiment 1 reveals that self-associated stimuli enjoy a processing rate advantage in the perceptual decision condition, driven by a capacity increase that benefits primarily the self-associated stimulus. Critically, this advantage disappears in the social decision condition, where if anything the other-associated stimulus is favored -- a dissociation confirmed in Experiment 2. Individual-difference analyses sharpen the dissociation: participants who show stronger automatic self-prioritization at the perceptual level show less self-facilitation at the social level, with the tradeoff driven by differential allocation of attentional weights. Experiment 2 crosses social association with perceptual salience in a factorial design. For other-associated stimuli, social and perceptual salience effects are additive, consistent with independent mechanisms. For self-associated stimuli, however, the perceptual salience benefit is substantially reduced, revealing a sub-additive interaction that localizes the exception to self-relevance specifically. The authors interpret this pattern as evidence that social and perceptual salience operate through largely separate processing streams, but that self-association partially preempts the perceptual salience channel. All claims are bounded to the specific paradigm envelope of arbitrary shape-identity associations analyzed under hierarchical Bayesian TVA, and generalization beyond this scope is not established.
▸ Show traceback (15 synthesis sentences)
- Scheller et al. ask whether arbitrary self-association alters early attentional selection and, if so, through what mechanism.
- Working within Bundesen's Theory of Visual Attention, which decomposes attention into absolute processing capacity (C) and relative attentional weights (w), they advance three linked hypotheses.
- The first holds that mere association of a neutral shape with the self acts as an automatic salience signal at the perceptual feature level, boosting the processing rate of the self-associated stimulus even when social identity is task-irrelevant -- and that requiring an explicit social-identity decision should attenuate or reverse this advantage by redirecting resources toward a competing social-decoding stage.
- The second hypothesis specifies the mechanism: self-association mobilizes additional encoding capacity (a change in C) rather than merely redistributing fixed attentional weights.
- The third proposes that social salience and physical perceptual salience capture attention via independent mechanisms whose effects should combine additively.
- Two preregistered experiments using temporal order judgement tasks test these predictions.
- A hierarchical Bayesian TVA model comparison establishes the methodological foundation: a model with condition-specific capacity parameters substantially outperforms a weights-only model, confirming that self-association changes absolute processing rates.
- With this validated decomposition in hand, Experiment 1 reveals that self-associated stimuli enjoy a processing rate advantage in the perceptual decision condition, driven by a capacity increase that benefits primarily the self-associated stimulus.
- Critically, this advantage disappears in the social decision condition, where if anything the other-associated stimulus is favored -- a dissociation confirmed in Experiment 2.
- Individual-difference analyses sharpen the dissociation: participants who show stronger automatic self-prioritization at the perceptual level show less self-facilitation at the social level, with the tradeoff driven by differential allocation of attentional weights.
- Experiment 2 crosses social association with perceptual salience in a factorial design.
- For other-associated stimuli, social and perceptual salience effects are additive, consistent with independent mechanisms.
- For self-associated stimuli, however, the perceptual salience benefit is substantially reduced, revealing a sub-additive interaction that localizes the exception to self-relevance specifically.
- The authors interpret this pattern as evidence that social and perceptual salience operate through largely separate processing streams, but that self-association partially preempts the perceptual salience channel.
- All claims are bounded to the specific paradigm envelope of arbitrary shape-identity associations analyzed under hierarchical Bayesian TVA, and generalization beyond this scope is not established.
How it is defined
A model answers this layer, so the prompt is the layer. It is reproduced below from the committed file, and it is a declared input — editing it makes every run that used it stale.
The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.
The declaration names this path and the repository does not have it. An input that does not exist hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale — the layer is declared to depend on something it is not in fact tracking.
Artifacts
This layer across the corpus
Across the corpus
9 run not observed · 1 stale·a paper links to its own cell, where this layer's output for it is rendered
Inputs and outputs
- Reads, besides its dependencies
-
- extract/prompts/synthesis.md · declared, and not in the repository — it hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale
- extract/prompts/contract/vocabulary.md · declared, and not in the repository — it hashes to nothing, so it cannot make a run stale
- Produces
-
- site/src/data/synthesis-v3/{paper}.json
One per paper — the table above links each one that exists.
- Views
-
- document — rendered above, from the artifact itself
- comparison — on the cell page, two versions aligned by the matcher, wherever the ledger holds more than one
Running it
The command comes from the declaration, so this text and what actually runs cannot
diverge. pipeline.py run also runs the unmet dependencies first.
python3 scripts/pipeline.py run <paper> synthesis
Underneath, that runs cd extract && python3 -m claim_graphs.cli synthesis --paper {paper}.